Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161286AbWBVA0Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:26:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161287AbWBVA0Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:26:16 -0500 Received: from MAIL.13thfloor.at ([212.16.62.50]:59786 "EHLO mail.13thfloor.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161286AbWBVA0P (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:26:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:26:13 +0100 From: Herbert Poetzl To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Daniel Barkalow , Linux Kernel ML Subject: Re: [RFC] duplicate #include check for build system Message-ID: <20060222002613.GG20204@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mail-Followup-To: "Randy.Dunlap" , Sam Ravnborg , Daniel Barkalow , Linux Kernel ML References: <20060221014824.GA19998@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <20060221175246.GA9070@mars.ravnborg.org> <20060222001153.GF20204@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2299 Lines: 69 On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:18:57PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:52:46PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:29:12AM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > > > > > > I think the kernel style is to encourage duplicate includes, > > > > rather than removing them. Removing duplicate includes won't > > > > remove any dependancies (since the includes that they duplicate > > > > will remain). > > > > > The style as I have understood it is that each .h file in > > > include/linux/ are supposed to be self-contained. So it includes > > > what is needs, and the 'what it needs' are kept small. > > > > > > Keeping the 'what it needs' part small is a challenge resulting > > > in smaller .h files. But also a good way to keep related things > > > together. > > > > glad that I stimulated a philosophical discussion > > about the kernel header files and what they should > > include or not ... > > > > but the idea was more to give the developers an > > instrument to verify that they are not including > > stuff several times, and that's actually in .h > > and .c files, because it seems that often the same > > header file is included twice in the _same_ file > > > > anyway, was this a positive or negative reply? > > Hi Herbert, > > The goal is not to remove the most possible #includes. which I totally agree with ... but a) how is that related to _having_ a tool to check for duplicate includes, and b) how is it related to removing duplicate includes in general? let me give a simple example here: #include #include #include -#include do you think the second one is really desired? > E.g., if sched.h already sucks in kernel.h, > kernel.h still should be #included if the source (.c) > files uses any APIs or extern data from kernel.h. > > Does that help? no, sorry, doesn't help here ... nevertheless thanks, Herbert > -- > ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/